That's the problem with your thinking. It's based on an assumption! Instead of admitting you don't know, you just assume. But why? Why do that if you really care whether or not your beliefs are true? You aren't believing "Jesus". You're believing hear-say from an old book that you've read, and been told about. For someone who rejects evolution it doesn't seem that your standard of evidence is that high. The NT wasn't even written by eye-witnesses and it contradicts itself all over the place. But besides that why would you believe it in the first place? Why believe ANY book that makes claims to the supernatural and then base your entire life upon it (including how you interpret scientific data)? It's seems quite hypocritical, since you wouldn't lower your standard of evidence in this way for a fast talking salesman at your door - and lots of other religions practice this same kind of thinking to their peril. So why not stop the big assumption?

CC claims that he is not using two different standards of proof, despite the very obvious fact that he does.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.

I think I would have noticed if you had retracted it before now.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

You didn't answer the other points I made about C-14 - Amount of biomass has been constant, amount in atmosphere has been constant. Your example of gravity also isn't very good since universal gravitational attraction is clearly seen in galaxies, etc. You can't compare a change in fundamental physical law to a change in the amount of material on a planet anyway.

Actually, there's no guarantee that the theory of universal gravitation is constant through the entire universe. Indeed, something is interfering with it, thus why every galaxy we can see except those in the Local Group are redshifted - and the more redshifted the further they are away, as if they're accelerating away from us.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

You are still just begging the question, and presenting the same arguments, without addressing the fact that the amount of biomass in the past and C-14 in the atmosphere in the past is speculative, and therefore radiometric dating beyond a certain point is speculative, and does not belong to science.

False. I was pressing you on the rate of decay, since you indicated that you thought it could have changed radically in the past Since you've conceded that the rate of decay would have remained constant, I'll switch my focus to the other points you raised. However, the first one (that the amount of biomass is the same) is not actually an assumption used in carbon dating. A smaller amount of biomass wouldn't cause organisms to take in more c14, and a larger amount of biomass wouldn't cause them to take in less.

What matters for carbon dating is whether the rate of decay has changed and whether we can account for the times when c14 was either greater or less than it is now. That's why we use tree rings and also use carbon dating on objects where we can confirm the date through other methods. That lets us account for c14 fluctuations. For example, we've determined that there was a major influx of cosmic rays about 1,200 years ago, enough to increase the amount of c14 in tree rings from that time period by a noticeable percentage. That means we can account for that fluctuation. So, very simply, we don't require that the amount of c14 remains constant, just that we can keep track of the times when it changes.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Biomass and atmosphere have both been non-existent in the past, according to anyone. The question really is, when was that? Either way it has changed.

Of course. But the YEC assumption, that God essentially snapped his fingers and caused all life forms (and the life cycles that support them) to come into existence over a few days a bit more than 6,000 years ago, is not tenable. Whereas the longer time frames implicit in geology, evolution, and so on have one key advantage - they don't require things to have happened quickly, which YECism does.

I do see the problem. I've been letting you get away with ipse dixit, but now it's time to post sources.

I have been posting sources. If you are missing them, then that is your fault. You do not get to accuse me of ipse dixit simply because you haven't paid close enough attention to my posts.

Quote

I did. It was in this link (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above). That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

That was also the part where I told you that that was old, as in 1982 like it says at the top. Now we have IRMS

The fact that it is three decades old does not invalidate it. If you can point out where the conclusions of this website are wrong, that is another story.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Yes, I know that. I told you to ask because the burden of proof is on you to dispute a scientific paper. Do you have a PhD by chance?

No. Do you?

Also, do you know what actual PhDs the authors of this paper you're referring to have? It is entirely possible to get a PhD in a totally non-scientific field. If you don't, you should check.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

I'm sure you have plenty of doubts about the truth, unfortunately.

No, I have plenty of doubts, period. I don't claim to know what "the truth" is. That's because I'm a skeptic. I do not simply accept what someone tells me - doesn't matter who it is - as the truth. I require them to provide solid evidence to support it. And so far, you have utterly failed to provide even the slightest shred of real support for YECism as science. All you've done is try to call science that disagrees with YECism into question, and then arbitrarily claimed that the rest of science supports it. That isn't even slightly convincing.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

That's because of the different methods of looking for evidence. Edit: The evolutionists are not looking for whether or not it has happened, because they presuppose it has not.

You mean like creationists presuppose that the Biblical creation and Biblical flood happened? No, I don't think so. Scientists have a vested interest in not simply accepting such presuppositions as fact, because it invalidates the whole system of scientific methodology and undercuts the basis of the science we use today.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Age doesn't matter in the dogs part, it does in the earth part. Why are you making this an argument?

Because you're trying to have it both ways - to claim that the age doesn't matter in some things, but it does in others. It either matters in everything, or it matters in nothing.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

That's because I gave you some that do, such as the obscure fellow Dawkins.

This is a lie. You didn't even mention Dawkins in this thread until just now.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Not based on doctrine they didn't, which is the point.

Which doctrine? There are literally thousands of Christian doctrines, and at least some of them do indeed buy into supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (such as disease). Note the writer of that page trying to explain that you need supernatural intervention for some diseases and not for others, that some are caused by germs and others by demons.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

"Reality" as you call it must be shown through the scientific method

Do you even understand how the scientific method works? It's a process by which people come up with explanations which fit existing observations - meaning they haven't been falsified. It isn't about determining whether something is true, it's about determining whether it's false.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Argument from authority? I have to question whether or not you understood what he meant by that anyway. Let him know that there are no fingers or eyes mentioned, because the fingers and eyes of organisms have the same genetic codes. THESE genetic codes are from DIFFERENT organisms which supposedly have the same common ancestor. Let your friend know that he would probably have to be a geneticist to begin to answer this question.

I asked him to help me figure out what the page was saying because I could only get a general idea. He told me that the information on this page was about showing where the initiation codons for genes were, not showing that organisms can't change evolutionarily. At this point, I seriously doubt that you have sufficient background in biology and genetics to understand what anything on that page means.

Which proves...? Again, I'm being quite serious. I do not think this means what you think it does. Most organisms - in fact, the vast majority of organisms, and most of the ones on that list - are diploid, not polyploid. And there is no reason that a diploid organism can't survive and even thrive with an extra pair or two of chromosomes. Polyploidy is when you have three paired chromosomes or more in a set, instead of just two (for example, 69 chromosomes in sets of threes instead of 46 in sets of twos). I think you would find if you looked that the polyploid organisms follow different lines of descent than the diploid ones[1].

Quote from: ChristianConspirator

Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence! This is my whole point, which you seem to be missing. Both evolution and creation rely on assumptions of their validity, it HAS to be that way, and yet you keep insisting that evolution must be true, regardless of the fact that you've admitted repeatedly that everything that "proves" evolution is based on them.

Actually, I haven't once insisted evolution must be true. I'm not sure why you think I did.

By the way, every single branch of science stands on certain assumptions. Evolution is no different in that respect. That's why we call them scientific theories. The difference between science and creationism is that scientific assumptions are based only on what we can observe (even if it's historical) and test, whereas creationism's assumptions are based on doctrine from an ancient book, written by people who didn't know or care what science was. It's like the difference between an educated guess and a WAG, except that scientific theories are far more sound than educated guesses.

^^^Thanks for this, revealing yet another problem with the young earth, great flood idea: everything has to happen super fast to fit into the less than 10,000 year time scale.

Different plant and animal species have to appear with every generation, the continents have to drift around like speedboats, mountains have to rise as people watch. Rivers have to carve out valleys in like, minutes. Glaciers freeze up in seconds. The Grand Canyon would have to be created in a few days, including the time to lay down all the sedimentary rock. Volcanoes form on the sea floor, emerge on the surface, erupt, cool into islands, and break down into soil. In minutes. With all the life forms intact. And then, once all this has happened, inexplicably, it all slows done to the pace we observe today.

Not only do you have to violate everything we know about biology, physics and geology. You have to get all this done without anyone noticing!

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I remember when I was a kid, christians explaining to me that a year meant something else back then. That it was muuuuuuch longer than what a year is now. These were "old earth" creationists, using this excuse to explain away the <10k years problem. They also claimed that life spans were hundreds of years, yet another way of justifying odd dates in the bible. The mind boggles at the mental gymnastics involved in justifying the bible.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

I remember when I was a kid, christians explaining to me that a year meant something else back then. That it was muuuuuuch longer than what a year is now. These were "old earth" creationists, using this excuse to explain away the <10k years problem. They also claimed that life spans were hundreds of years, yet another way of justifying odd dates in the bible. The mind boggles at the mental gymnastics involved in justifying the bible.

I remember those days. How pathetic they were.

Also, the days of calendar differences which is correct that there are differences but not such huge gaps of differences.

I think it's worth mentioning that all of these arguments CC is making regarding evolution/geology and/or currently accepted science are a red herring. Even if he could disprove all of the current evidence (I say overwhelming evidence) for evolution and/or an old earth geological timeline, absolutely NONE of that disproving would mean his 'hypotheses' are correct. Of course, he's already admitted that his position is faith based (yay!) but that is just another problem for his credulity - believing "on faith" instead of admitting ignorance on the subject. What arrogance and hubris religion brings!! The further attempt to accuse others of having "faith" like him (i.e. those who choose to follow the evidence, not lead it) is in grievous error b/c we aren't practicing such bias. Plus, this assertion is certainly one based in his assumption of how knowledge works - and it often stems from the faulty black/white thinking of biblical literalists. That is to say, "anything that isn't absolutely certain is faith based". But....NOPE! It's not. Science has nothing to do with absolute certainty and it is simply false to think that if you can't know something "absolutely" (whatever that means) then "it's just faith". Yet often times when debates like this get into arguing over what faith is, Christians want to make that definition quite slippery - to make it mean anything they want it to mean (including anyone who tentatively trusts the evidence where it leads - such as in science). But faith doesn't work that way when it comes to biblical literalists and how they view science issues that conflict with their assumptions. They don't believe tentatively/loosely. It's quite the opposite - starting with a conclusion (aka - an assumption, by CC's own words) and then looking for things to support it (while ignoring all else to the contrary). And what is this called again...?

p.s. - I thought it was quite funny that early on CC accused me of refuting someone "other than" him when I anticipated his position:

Quote

bravo on your sound defeat of somebody other than me

Come to find out, it was him all along whom I defeated. Cheerio... Christianity is irrational nonsense and so is Young Earth Creationism.

Not only do you have to violate everything we know about biology, physics and geology. You have to get all this done without anyone noticing!

Of course, YECists argue that all that messy stuff happened before there were any humans in the first place. However, no humans means no witnesses, and unless we get some alien species which observed the incredible spectacle of a planet forming itself within a few days, complete with biosphere, and can show us those records, it means that creationism will never be accepted the way it was when humans were ignorant of science.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Instead of doing the whole ark thing why didn't god just destroy all the evil people with his magic. It would of been a lot neater and after all he is omnipotent.

Because then all the dead people would have lain around and stunk up the place. There wouldn't have been enough good people left to bury or burn all the corpses. So YHWH apparently decided to kill two birds with one stone, killing all the bad people with a giant flood, and using said flood to get all of the resulting corpses out from underfoot.

Makes perfect sense as long as you don't know about (or are willing to ignore) the way that dead organisms contaminate water. Yet more science that YECists like CC have to ignore or try to rationalize away.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Yes, the history of religious SPIN and rationalizing hath no bounds. Unfortunately for them, that means they don't care whether or not their beliefs are actually true. They just want to believe what makes them feel comfortable. Thankfully, science has the awesome job of continuously finding uncomfortable truths which often require them to evolve their religion forward! They said God made the lightening. Science showed otherwise. They said the earth is flat. Science showed otherwise. They said demons caused decease. Science showed otherwise. The gaps they fill with their invisible deity God thing is ever shrinking. Soon there will be nothing left. No more room for credulity. No more need for spin.

Instead of doing the whole ark thing why didn't god just destroy all the evil people with his magic. It would of been a lot neater and after all he is omnipotent.

Because then all the dead people would have lain around and stunk up the place. There wouldn't have been enough good people left to bury or burn all the corpses. So YHWH apparently decided to kill two birds with one stone, killing all the bad people with a giant flood, and using said flood to get all of the resulting corpses out from underfoot.

Makes perfect sense as long as you don't know about (or are willing to ignore) the way that dead organisms contaminate water. Yet more science that YECists like CC have to ignore or try to rationalize away.

Weak argument. God can create a universe with a thought, can create a woman with a rib, and man from clay, he can turn a woman into salt... There is no reason that he could not poof all the bad people out of existence or have them revert to their base elements in the blink of an eye. no need for stinky bodies or a flood.

Weak argument. God can create a universe with a thought, can create a woman with a rib, and man from clay, he can turn a woman into salt... There is no reason that he could not poof all the bad people out of existence or have them revert to their base elements in the blink of an eye. no need for stinky bodies or a flood.

No kidding. But that's probably the rationale that Biblical literalists would give if asked.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Instead of doing the whole ark thing why didn't god just destroy all the evil people with his magic. It would of been a lot neater and after all he is omnipotent.

Because then all the dead people would have lain around and stunk up the place. There wouldn't have been enough good people left to bury or burn all the corpses. So YHWH apparently decided to kill two birds with one stone, killing all the bad people with a giant flood, and using said flood to get all of the resulting corpses out from underfoot.

Makes perfect sense as long as you don't know about (or are willing to ignore) the way that dead organisms contaminate water. Yet more science that YECists like CC have to ignore or try to rationalize away.

Weak argument. God can create a universe with a thought, can create a woman with a rib, and man from clay, he can turn a woman into salt... There is no reason that he could not poof all the bad people out of existence or have them revert to their base elements in the blink of an eye. no need for stinky bodies or a flood.

Exactly. That's why the global flood makes no sense for an omnipotent, or even semipotent god. We puny humans have nuclear weapons that can waste the whole planet several times over and leave it looking like the moon. God could have just done that and hit the Genesis project reboot button.

But all that does is push the question back to where all those evil people came from to begin with. And why god waited until nearly everyone was evil, and then take this drastic genocidal action-- instead of just getting rid of the first evil person and be done. And why all the evil animals and plants and insects and microbes had to be drowned along with the evil people and then be recreated again somehow. And how was it that the evil came right back again anyway. And....

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.

Please do this. The only attempts I have seen at research in this line seems to be more in the way of papers written for the general public not real research. The Creation Institute is one such body which does just that. Oh, and papers published in main-stream, peer reviewed journals would be interesting.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Instead of doing the whole ark thing why didn't god just destroy all the evil people with his magic. It would of been a lot neater and after all he is omnipotent.

Because then all the dead people would have lain around and stunk up the place. There wouldn't have been enough good people left to bury or burn all the corpses. So YHWH apparently decided to kill two birds with one stone, killing all the bad people with a giant flood, and using said flood to get all of the resulting corpses out from underfoot.

Makes perfect sense as long as you don't know about (or are willing to ignore) the way that dead organisms contaminate water. Yet more science that YECists like CC have to ignore or try to rationalize away.

Weak argument. God can create a universe with a thought, can create a woman with a rib, and man from clay, he can turn a woman into salt... There is no reason that he could not poof all the bad people out of existence or have them revert to their base elements in the blink of an eye. no need for stinky bodies or a flood.

"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.

Please do this. The only attempts I have seen at research in this line seems to be more in the way of papers written for the general public not real research. The Creation Institute is one such body which does just that. Oh, and papers published in main-stream, peer reviewed journals would be interesting.

Creationists are busy building "Wedge" strategies and making bald assertions about "creation", not doing actual scientific investigation.

Good point, Median! We have decades of research into evolution with fossil evidence as well as DNA and other things. We have various dating techniques to date the fossils we find and everything fits together with the Theory of Evolution. Creationist 'researchers' merely come along and look for anything they can find, no matter how insignificant and claim hole in the theory yet that's not research at all.

Disproving Evolution would be a quite simple task - just find some fossils in the wrong order in the rocks and the whole theory comes crashing down. Of course, that would take vast amounts of work with low chance of success so picking at little holes in the theory is much easier.

While we are at it, since science has calculated the age of the earth using the tools we have to some 4 billion years old, how come no YEC 'researcher' hasn't come up with evidence that the earth is actually, what, 6,000 years old? Of course, the whole YEC thing is a bit daft as the bible isn't a continuous datable text as some claim and there is clearly not attempt by the writers to include all the generation that existed. After all, how did the earth repopulated after the flood - in 16 generations, and where did the Egyptians come from? It all points to much longer periods that are not documented.

Good point, Median! We have decades of research into evolution with fossil evidence as well as DNA and other things. We have various dating techniques to date the fossils we find and everything fits together with the Theory of Evolution. Creationist 'researchers' merely come along and look for anything they can find, no matter how insignificant and claim hole in the theory yet that's not research at all.

Disproving Evolution would be a quite simple task - just find some fossils in the wrong order in the rocks and the whole theory comes crashing down. Of course, that would take vast amounts of work with low chance of success so picking at little holes in the theory is much easier.

While we are at it, since science has calculated the age of the earth using the tools we have to some 4 billion years old, how come no YEC 'researcher' hasn't come up with evidence that the earth is actually, what, 6,000 years old? Of course, the whole YEC thing is a bit daft as the bible isn't a continuous datable text as some claim and there is clearly not attempt by the writers to include all the generation that existed. After all, how did the earth repopulated after the flood - in 16 generations, and where did the Egyptians come from? It all points to much longer periods that are not documented.

I appreciate this response. There simply is no "Creation Science". That term, in and of itself, is a complete oxi-moron. Creationists aren't doing any science regarding "creation". They haven't demonstrated anything was "created". They have no evidence to support their mere hypotheses/claims of some deity 'creating' anything, and they certainly don't have any good arguments as to why anyone should consider their assertions as science. Instead, people such as Phillip Johnson (of the Discovery Institute) - who btw is an attorney not a scientist - are busy trying to cloak ID/Creationism in a science looking marketing mask while trying to label evolutionary biology as "naturalistic philosophy".

Every time I read about such total and complete garbage I can't help but laugh. The religious will stop at next to nothing in order to prop up their failed reasoning - all because they grew up with an assumption (indeed a superstition) about the the bible (usually given to them by their parents) and would have much to lose (socially and otherwise) if they discovered it was false - oh the webs we weave! I practiced their same nonsense, and used their same irrational arguments, for years until you kind non-believers came along and put me to the test!

Checkout this article on some relatively new brain science being done. It seems we are predisposed to favor belief over facts and sound reasoning. Who knew!

In order to repopulate the entire earth in less than 10,000 years, people would have had to make thousands of babies overnight and migrate out of Turkey-- or where ever the hell the ark was supposed to be-- at incredible speeds. Running like cheetahs in every direction, while leaving no record whatsoever of having done so.

At the same time they would have to create all the separate cultures. Changing into all the different racial and language groups along the way. Adapting to arctic, tropical and temperate environments, domesticating different varieties of plants and animals. Making sure that the big brown people went to the Pacific Islands, the short black people went into Central Africa and the tall pale folks went to Scandinavia. Separating and intermarrying to get the DNA mixed just right to confuse later scientists into thinking that humans evolved over millions of years.

Once arriving in their new locations, the people would have to get busy, busy, busy. Learning how to build different kinds of housing and make different kinds of clothes from various local materials. Isolating themselves on remote islands, and mountain villages. Creating different religions, artistic forms, family structures, healing practices. Inventing weapons to make war with other groups.

(We are of course leaving out the part about all the animals and plants and birds and insects and diseases having to somehow organize themselves by sub-species and migrate to their correct locations so they would be there before the people got there. I would love to hear a "creation scientist" explain a)why there are no monkeys with tails in Africa, b)why there are penguins only in the southern hemisphere, c)how freshwater fish got to the rivers and d)how arctic lichen walked from the Middle East to the Russian tundra. I won't be holding my breath while I listen to the crickets.)

After doing all that in record time-- and planting lots of fake archeological evidence--everyone on the planet would have to forget having done it.

This would make for a cool science fiction story, only it would be too improbable for anyone to believe it....

In order to repopulate the entire earth in less than 10,000 years, people would have had to make thousands of babies overnight and migrate out of Turkey-- or where ever the hell the ark was supposed to be-- at incredible speeds. Running like cheetahs in every direction, while leaving no record whatsoever of having done so.

6000 years. Lets be generous and give them all of it. Lets be generous and use 15 years a generation. 400 generations each having three point three females.Life expectancy 45.

three females on the ark.92781243729218762511968359049177147531441159432347829691434890743046721129140163387420489116226146734867844017 billion

So the math does not quite support your assertion as the current population could be achieved in approximately 315 years with such generous givens. Even if we make them less generous, still less than 6000.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

After doing all that in record time-- and planting lots of fake archeological evidence--everyone on the planet would have to forget having done it.

Not so much the "forgetting having done it". More the "forgetting EVERYTHING about Yahweh and the colossal power he wields.....within just a few generations.

By the time we get to Moses, the Egyptians (despite being, like Moses, direct descendants of Noah) have forgotten Yahweh, forgotten the flood, forgotten everything about this god who has the power to wipe out the whole world. Plausible? No way.

^Not only that, but they're actually limiting it to a mere 5,000 years or so.

less than that even. We've not found observations of changes in in people in written history. So even if you only go back as far as the Romans, that chops 2000 years off that time frame. Same for evolution of animals. All the "micro-evolving" had to have been done in a tiny 3000 year window, and then stopped by time jesus H showed up.

After doing all that in record time-- and planting lots of fake archeological evidence--everyone on the planet would have to forget having done it.

Not so much the "forgetting having done it". More the "forgetting EVERYTHING about Yahweh and the colossal power he wields.....within just a few generations.

By the time we get to Moses, the Egyptians (despite being, like Moses, direct descendants of Noah) have forgotten Yahweh, forgotten the flood, forgotten everything about this god who has the power to wipe out the whole world. Plausible? No way.

I have also heard how strong oral traditions are and that this explains the accuracy of the bible.

so not only did the egyptians forget but they broke from this super strong oral tradition of the noah family. It would have to have been a concerted effort to deny ones family tradition and invent a completely new one.

I guess the egyptian line of kids just decided to ignore the god, disregarding this super being who wiped out the world. Now I suppose this is possible if there is a concerted effort to do so, like in "The Village".

I could also buy this if oral traditions was not a solid way to transport facts and evidence across time unchanged. But biblical scholars assure me this is not the case:)

I'll give you the numbers, Hatter, assuming all those people reproduce and most survive. It could happen. The question is, wouldn't the people who are around 315 years later look pretty much like the original family? I would guess, kind of Middle Eastern looking. there would not be any black, white, Amerindian, Australasian, south Asian, East Asian etc people. Because evolution does not happen that fast.

Even if it did, they would still have to spread all over the world, arrive after all the plants and animals have been established in thier environmental niches, and differentiate into distinct racial and cultural groups without noticing that they are doing it.... and then completely forget about Noah and the god who drowned everyone.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I'll give you the numbers, Hatter, assuming all those people reproduce and most survive. It could happen. The question is, wouldn't the people who are around 315 years later look pretty much like the original family? I would guess, kind of Middle Eastern looking. there would not be any black, white, Amerindian, Australasian, south Asian, East Asian etc people. Because evolution does not happen that fast.

Even if it did, they would still have to spread all over the world, arrive after all the plants and animals have been established in thier environmental niches, and differentiate into distinct racial and cultural groups without noticing that they are doing it.... and then completely forget about Noah and the god who drowned everyone.

I am saying there are plenty of reasons why the Ark is ab-so-fucking-lutely ludicrous. However, what you said isn't one of them. Remember the "Three daughters" were supposedly the foundations of the three racial subtypes in standard Christian Mythology

I would go with "and yet they forgot" as the primary structure of your argument. I know I may seem like I'm shooting you down, but given that if you give Christian 10 reasons why the Bible is just a collection of fairy stories, and one is weak.....guess which one they are going to talk about?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And where did all the other races (besides the three mythical ones--black, white and yellow ) come from? I guess they cram everyone else-- Middle Eastern folks, east Asians, south Asians, Indonesians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders (and whatever the Basque, the Roma and Laplanders are) into one big happy messy ball o' same race humanity.

They would still have to account for all the different isolated cultures that seem to have little or no relation to each other, considering they started out as all one family. And the massive biogeography problems with the walking lichen, swimming kangaroos and desert crossing polar bears, etc.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?